H.R.3200 - America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009

America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 view all titles (5)

All Bill Titles

  • Official: America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 as introduced.
  • Official: To provide affordable, quality health care for all Americans and reduce the growth in health care spending, and for other purposes. as introduced.
  • Popular: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 as introduced.
  • Short: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 as introduced.
  • Short: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 as reported to house.

Comments Feed

Displaying 1861-1890 of 2046 total comments.

  • Comm_reply
    ltr08 10/06/2009 8:32am
    Link Reply
    + -1

    Lucasfoxx – Thank you for your post…

    “I shouldn’t have to pay more taxes for someone who does not have insurance.”

    So tell me Arzugm you earn over 280,000.00 per year/ have household of over 350,000.00? Because according to the bill those people will be expected to pay more. If you do… it makes you a greedy pig.

    …over all the costs should come down for the very reasons Lucasfoxx points out…

  • Comm_reply
    abaratar 10/18/2009 10:48pm

    false, all people will be required to purchase community rate and guaranteed issuance policies which cost triple what current insurance currently costs

  • LucasFoxx 10/04/2009 12:16am
    Link Reply
    + -2

    This bill has flaws: creating a new bureaucracy to monitor health insurance compliance, for one; they should leave that to the courts. But seeing what has become of the Senate Finance Committee bill, and having read this one and several others, H.R. 3200 is the best one on the table right now. I’d like to read the comments here on the different sections on it, but the bill is so long, and there are so many non-constructive arguments that my browser stops responding. I have to read it from the Library of Congress site.

    I could live with them stripping out the mandate, and the public option, and obviously the Health Choices Administration; if they could keep in the qualifications for benefit plans. They could take out all of the spending in this bill and it would still be revolutionary.

  • bkrueg 10/06/2009 2:11pm

    AMA’s own 2008 National Health Insurer Report . JUST-SAY-NO HR-3200 The Medicare denial rate found in the study was, on a weighted average basis, roughly 1.7 times that of all of the private carriers combined (99,025 divided by 2,447,216 is 4.05%; 6.85% divided by 4.05% =1.69).You would think Medicare’s sheer size might enable it to have smoother procedures with its providers that would enable it to turn down a lower percentage of claims. But no, this is the government we’re talking about. So who’s the most “heartless” now? And why should Americans accept the idea of gradually being forced into a government-run system when, based on documented government experience, they will be more likely to see their claims denied? And I didn’t even get to the idea of refusals to treat in the first place, something that is present to some degree in virtually every state-run system, but is currently against the law in hospital emergency rooms in the U.S. by HT Mark Levin and HSA Benefits Consulting

  • Comm_reply
    LucasFoxx 10/06/2009 4:08pm
    Link Reply
    + -3

    2008? In 2009 the American Medical Association supports the health care reform bill. After this summer, I’m not very concerned about what the National Health Insurers think. I support this bill.

  • Comm_reply
    TSpringer59 10/07/2009 4:43pm

    There, you finally said it ("I support this bill). You say that everyone has the “right” to healthcare. Let’s look at this scenario: Two brothers born at the same time in the US, and as such, are natural born citizens of the United States. This affords them the same rights, under the Constitution, of life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. I hope that we can at least agree on this, right??

    (to be continued)

  • Comm_reply
    TSpringer59 10/07/2009 4:53pm

    (Continued)
    So, as these brothers grow up, although they have the same opportunities (by rights) they make different choices. Brother A becomes successful and can afford to buy whatever he and his family needs, including health insurance for healthcare. Brother B makes choices in his life that keeps him on welfare, and therefore cannot afford anything on his own, including insurance or healthcare. But, because some people believe brother B has the “right” to healthcare, he is provided it at no cost to him.

    Are we still on the same page??

    (to be continued)

  • Comm_reply
    TSpringer59 10/07/2009 5:08pm

    (Cont)

    Now, Brother B is given this “right” that brother A is not. How then, is it a right? Brother A is DENIED the same free healthcare that is the “right” of brother B. Who decides which person gets what “rights”. In the beginning, and still today, both brothers have the right to earn their own way and this cannot be denied. The “right” to healthcare is no longer a right, it is a “privilage” that is dictated according to circumstances by a third party. In fact, this “right” to healthcare is now paid for by brother A, to which he does not have this same “right”, but is REQUIRED to fund. In fact, should brother B become self-sufficient, then he too is no longer afforded this “right” that he used to have! I submit that a “right” is only a “right” when it is equal to all.

  • Comm_reply
    TSpringer59 10/07/2009 5:26pm

    The newfangled “rights” wipe out real rights — and turn the people who actually create the goods and services involved into servants of the state. The Russians tried this exact system for many decades. Unfortunately, we have not learned from their experience. Yet the meaning of socialism (this is the right name for Gov’t-run healthcare) is clearly evident in any field at all — you don’t need to think of health care as a special case; it is just as apparent if the government were to proclaim a universal right to food, or to a vacation, or to a haircut. I mean: a right in the new sense: not that you are free to earn these things by your own effort and trade, but that you have a moral claim to be given these things free of charge, with no action on your part, simply as handouts from a benevolent government.

  • Comm_reply
    LucasFoxx 10/07/2009 7:35pm
    Link Reply
    + -2

    The issue is not that Brother B is a welfare whore. Its’ that Brother B might be a member of the working poor or might have a congenital condition that didn’t manifest in the brother. Brother A can still get the best care that money can buy. He can get all the boob jobs he wants. And we are not talking about FREE health care. This bill is about affordable healthcare. This about Brother B getting regular check-ups and preventive medicine paid for with the outrageous premiums he has to pay, a cap on annual out of pocket expenses that Brother A can afford but might bankrupt Brother B, and an affordable option for when Brother A fires Brother B simply because Brother A needs a new carport. And if worse comes to worse, I don’t have a problem helping Brother B or A under Article I section 8 of the Constitution that allows Congress to collect money to provide for the common welfare. I’m not a supporter of Single Payer, but I do support the Public Option.

  • Comm_reply
    oderintdummetuant 10/07/2009 7:44pm

    Do you have any clue about the way in which the “General Welfare” clause of Article I Section 8 of the Constitution has been interpreted? The General Welfare Clause in the Constitution has always been interpreted as a limit to federal power rather than granting the government freedom to subjugate the populace under the guise of doing for them.

    And you wanted me to learn my history.
    P.S. Welfare is not the same as Health Care

    fool

  • Comm_reply
    LucasFoxx 10/08/2009 4:49pm
    Link Reply
    + -1

    Steward Machine Co. v. Davis 301 U.S. 548 (1937)
    Mr. Justice CARDOZO delivered the opinion of the Court.
    “Accordingly the roll of the unemployed, itself formidable enough, was only a partial roll of the destitute or needy. The fact developed quickly that the states were unable to give the requisite relief. The problem had become national in area and dimensions. There was need of help from the nation if the people were not to starve. It is too late today for the argument to be heard with tolerance that in a crisis so extreme the use of the moneys of the nation to relieve the unemployed and their dependents is a use for any purpose narrower than the promotion of the general welfare. The nation responded to the call of the distressed.”

  • Comm_reply
    oderintdummetuant 10/08/2009 6:23pm

    It took you this long to hunt and find this? Seriously, and this pertains to healthcare correct? Oh, no it doesn’t, did you intend to post this diatribe in the part of opencongress dealing with extending unemployment benefits? Then this might be pertinent, however you didn’t and it is not. The “general welfare” as discussed in this case was regarding the inability of the people to get food…you need food to live…you don’t need health insurance…you want it and its awesome to have, but it is not a right. Your pedantic assessment of this case and the health care issue in America raises only one true point. Education in America needs attention, because yours is blatantly incomplete. Your inability to grasp the basic concepts of even how to argue are obtuse at best.

  • Comm_reply
    LucasFoxx 10/09/2009 3:42pm
    Link Reply
    + -1

    It should have been clear to everyone you think you’re a Libertarian when you quoted the Jefferson pablums that have been floating around since the 1960’s. I would point out the specific errors, but I think it’s funnier that you don’t know.

    It took me :30 seconds to find Supreme Court case law that addressed the general welfare question. It cites 3 prior precedents. You are wasting my time.

  • Comm_reply
    oderintdummetuant 10/10/2009 11:05am

    Your frustration at not being able to clearly and definitively defend your stance is funnier to me than you could possible understand. Again…peek over to the right, tell me what the numbers say? When you have nothing to stand on, feel free to stand on baseless ridicule, its apparent you are in the minority. Regardless of the outcome.
    Since you can’t validate your point of view or stance feel free to scamper off. I’d hate to waste your time educating you further.

  • Comm_reply
    LucasFoxx 10/13/2009 5:12pm
    Link Reply
    + -1

    Who’s frustrated. You haven’t even put up a fight. The vote at the right only polls users of this site. Having been through a number of bills and congressional profiles, and seen their polling, on this site, this vote doesn’t suprise me.

  • Comm_reply
    oderintdummetuant 10/13/2009 8:24pm

    Well you it seems are frustrated…you say I’m wasting your time but you have yet to articulate your point of view on any grounds other than…“cause its nice”. The vote to the right is on a decidedly left leaning site along with every other poll…the public doesn’t support a public option…not by majority anyway. Go ahead…expound. Tell me how I’m wrong..You can’t. The people of America do not want to fund health insurance for other people. Bottom line is your people have ZERO concept of personal responsibility…your idea of personal responsibility is making others personally responsible for you and the rest of the dead beats.

  • Comm_reply
    LucasFoxx 10/14/2009 5:25pm
    Link Reply
    + -1

    I answered you with Supreme Court precedent. I don’t have any more response to your arrogance, greed, or self-aggrandizement. I don’t find anything you’ve said to be credible. I’ve already pointed out where it is not, and you had no rebuttal.

  • Comm_reply
    bkrueg 10/14/2009 5:35pm

    If a concerned citizen asks a proponent of nationalized healthcare to point to the constitutional authority for such a law, he may hear that the “General Welfare” clause, the “Necessary and Proper” clause, or the “Interstate Commerce” clause enables Congress to create national public health insurance to act. None of these clauses—or any others found in the Constitution—gives Congress the power to create a government healthcare system. The “General Welfare” clause gives Congress the power “To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.” This clause is not a grant of power to Congress (as constitutional law professor Gary Lawson has shown). It is a limit to a power given to Congress. It limits the purpose for which Congress can lay and collect taxes.

  • Comm_reply
    LucasFoxx 10/16/2009 4:45pm
    Link Reply
    + -1

    The very United States Supreme Court defined in Article III of the Constitution disagrees with you.

  • Comm_reply
    bkrueg 10/19/2009 11:22am

    The Wall Street Journal
    Taxation can favor one industry or course of action over another, but a “tax” that falls exclusively on anyone who is uninsured is a penalty beyond Congress’s authority. If the rule were otherwise, Congress could evade all constitutional limits by “taxing” anyone who doesn’t follow an order of any kind—whether to obtain health-care insurance, or to join a health club, or exercise regularly, or even eat your vegetables.
    . . .
    Since the 1930s, the Supreme Court has been reluctant to invalidate “regulatory” taxes. However, a tax that is so clearly a penalty for failing to comply with requirements otherwise beyond Congress’s constitutional power will present the question whether there are any limits on Congress’s power to regulate individual Americans. The Supreme Court has never accepted such a proposition, and it is unlikely to accept it now, even in an area as important as health care.

  • Comm_reply
    LucasFoxx 10/19/2009 6:54pm

    You’ve put me in a difficult position. Do I believe the National Enquirer of financial news, or the Supreme Court of the United States. Decisions decisions..

  • Comm_reply
    bkrueg 10/20/2009 7:21pm

    Constitutional Scholars were quoted and reported in the WSJ and in other media saying the proposed Health Care Legislation is un-constitutional using facts and history. You chose to attack the messenger not the message.

  • Comm_reply
    LucasFoxx 10/21/2009 5:37pm
    Link Reply
    + -1

    And other Constitutional Scholars say it’s not. In the end, the law is all there is; and the Supreme Court is the final arbiter. I’ll go with them. But it is a John Roberts court, so you may yet get the constitution taken away from the people and handed over to the insurance industry.

  • Comm_reply
    bkrueg 10/22/2009 12:51pm

    lucasfoxx-I thank God every day for the John Roberts Court that interprets the Constitution as written and not think its some kind of living document that grows and then finds absurd powers for the various branches of government that were not intended or authorized. HR-3200 IS UN-CONSTITUTIONAL. You are correct the John Roberts Court will find that HR-3200 is un-constitutional and rightly so. Thank you for agreeing with me.

  • Comm_reply
    bkrueg 10/26/2009 1:59pm

    TOP NEWSPAPERS:

    1. = THE WALL STREET JOURNAL — 2,024,269
    2. = USA TODAY - 1,900,116 -
    3. = THE NEW YORK TIMES — 927,851 -
      LOS ANGELES TIMES -
      657,467 -
      THE WASHINGTON POST -
      582,844 —
      You later agreed the high court will probably find that HR-3200 is un-constitutional.
  • Comm_reply
    LucasFoxx 10/27/2009 5:50pm

    Not quite. I agreed that John Roberts would try to take the court towards taking constitution away from the people and hand it over to the corporations.

  • Comm_reply
    bkrueg 10/28/2009 7:48am
    Link Reply
    + -1

    lucasfoxx-THE COURT IS THE COURT. I repeat: I thank God every day for the John Roberts Court that interprets the Constitution as written and not think its some kind of living document that grows and then finds absurd powers for the various branches of government that were not intended or authorized. HR-3200 IS UN-CONSTITUTIONAL. You are correct the John Roberts Court will find that HR-3200 is un-constitutional and rightly so. Again, thank you for agreeing with me.

  • Comm_reply
    oderintdummetuant 10/14/2009 8:44pm

    Look you keep calling a dog a cat long enough maybe it will meow for you. Doesn’t make anything you’ve said relevant. Your Supreme Court precedent is a stretch at best. Your lack of understanding makes this like arguing with a fence post, but I’ll continue to point out your failure to clearly and adequately support your side.
    Sheep

  • Comm_reply
    LucasFoxx 10/08/2009 4:50pm
    Link Reply
    + -1

    You had me back into the Works of Thomas Jefferson. This reminded me of you: “You never knew when you were clear of him, but were harassed by his perseverance until the patience was worn down of all who had less of it than himself.”


Vote on This Bill

22% Users Support Bill

2320 in favor / 8051 opposed
 

Send Your Rep a Letter

about this bill Support Oppose Tracking
Track with MyOC

Top-Rated Comments